Ken Herman, columnist for the Austin American-Statesman, weighed in on Wendy Davis’ chances of
winning the gubernatorial election in 2014, commenting also on the addition of
Leticia Van de Putte to the ticket and spending most of the article describing
her. There were two sentences that stuck out to me. One was an assessment of
Wendy Davis: “So far, Davis has unimpressed some who’ve seen her up close.
She’s not Ann Richards, but who is. And it’s early.” That’s not really an
assessment. It’s an undocumented assertion, and on whose opinion is it based?
The other involves what is necessary for Wendy and Leticia to win: “There’s
little chance Van de Putte can win if Davis doesn’t. And there’s little chance
Davis can win if Van de Putte doesn’t. Their success depends on getting more
women and Hispanics to the polls. Both things are doable.”
Okay, it’s not just about women; it’s about women and Hispanics. But it’s more than just
those two groups as I pointed out in the last post. Why don’t journalists who
want to write about campaigns study the political science literature on
campaigns? There’s no single group or small number of groups that are the magic
bullet that allows a candidate to win an election. Campaigns are about
identifying your supporters and getting them registered to vote and to the
polls during early voting, if possible, or on Election Day.
How does political science literature suggest that a
candidate and campaign accomplish those goals? Journalists should read Green
and Gerber’s Get Out the Vote: How to
Increase Voter Turnout, 2nd edition, (2008) and Sasha Issenberg’s
The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns (2012). The
evidence from both books is that campaigns matter, a point that many political
scientists don’t make often enough.
Journalists should also interview political scientists who
have experience with campaigns. In Austin, that means contacting Daron Shaw,
professor of Government at The University of Texas. Issenberg points out that
Shaw rejected the then prevalent political science claim that “campaigns don’t
matter” as a graduate student. He demonstrated which campaign strategies and
tactics matter and how they matter in Issenberg’s chapter 8 on the “eggheads,”
as the four political scientists who Rick Perry employed during his 2006
gubernatorial campaign were called.
The problem, of course, is that journalists don’t think that
the public is interested enough to read an article that discusses politics and
political campaigns in detail; so superficial and meaningless assertions
substitute for thoughtful and cogent analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment